Alan Keyes on Government Reform American Independent nominee for President; 2004 Republican challenger for IL Senate

Strictly limit government to the Enumerated Powers

We seek to restore the intended balance between the three separate branches of our government, and to strictly limit government to the Enumerated Powers granted and expressed by the will of the people of the United States in our Constitution.
• All existing functions of the Executive branch that are outside of those Enumerated Powers must be eliminated.
• All spending and regulation by the Legislative branch that lies outside the Enumerated Powers must cease.
• who attempt to legislate from the bench, or who abandon the clear principles of our Constitution, must be checked if liberty and justice are to prevail in our society once again.
• We demand a return to adherence to the provisions of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Focus on moral sovereignty, tax reform, & sealing the border

Campaign finance reform violates freedom of association

Avoid incumbency protection: no union or corporate donors

The first principle is that there will be no “dollar” vote without a ballot vote. Only people who can walk into the voting booth and cast a vote for a candidate should be able to make a contribution to his campaign. This means no corporate contributions, and no union contributions, except from unions truly acting on the authority of members freely associating and intending to make a contribution.

The second principle is that when anyone casts a “dollar” vote, it should be publicized immediately. The whole world should know who is giving how much, and to whom, so that the voters can enforce the result.

Terri Schiavo case was about judicial power over executive

So, what does that mean? It means that the moment Jeb Bush declared himself to be thus incompetent--and I use the word advisedly--in the face of the judicial order, the executive power in Florida was transferred from him to the probate judge, who became the supreme executive authority in the state of Florida.

But in Florida, the supreme executive power shall be vested in the governor, the state constitution says. If subordinate executive authorities can by court order forcibly resist executive power, then every judicial judgment is potentially insurrectionary, in the literal sense.

No representation for DC; it has a unique unifying status

A: I think the most important thing to remember about Washington DC is that it was established to be a unique representation of the whole people of the US. That’s a city that’s supposed to belong to the nation, not to any one group and not to any one region. I think it’s terribly important to maintain that symbol of the unity of our country. We’re a free people. If folks don’t want to live in the conditions that prevail in Washington because of its unique status, they can go to Maryland or Virginia. A whole bunch of folks have done so. Some of the biggest churches and everything else now exist in Prince George’s County, because people left the District. They have that right, and I think that they can exercise it. But I think that the country is entitled to have this possession that symbolizes our whole united people, standing together as one community. I think it’s terribly important that we sustain it.

Disallow lawsuits that stop public officials invoking God

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Ok if church identifies candidates who favor its principles

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes. Let’s get rid of the entire IRS while we’re at it.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Reinstate that state legislatures elect US Senators

KEYES: Senators were originally chosen by the state legislatures for the simple reason that the US Senate was supposed to represent the state government as sovereign entities. Our laws in Illinois are passed by the state legislature. Are the people disenfranchised in the passing of these laws? I don’t think so.

OBAMA: I think [Illinois citizens] should be voting, not state legislatures. I teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago and I understand that’s how the constitution was framed. It also prohibited anyone but white, male property owners from voting. That’s why we had amendments. It’s a funny way to empower people to take their vote away.

We have surrendered our personal sovereignty to government

Surrendering moral government to courts surrenders freedom

Congress should have the last word, not the Supreme Court

Obeying the dictate of federal judges means no Constitution

Call halt to “War on this” and “War on that”

Only valid reason to go to Washington is to break up power

Campaign reform is hypocritical: leave office instead

BUSH: The people staying with me, these are my friends, John. These are my relatives, [yet you] somehow question my integrity. You talk a lot about the “iron triangle” and you’re ringing it like a dinner bell with all those fund-raisers.

McCAIN: George, if I’m ringing it like the dinner bell, you’ve got both feet in the trough because you’ve raised five times the amount of money in Washington [that I have].

KEYES: This whole campaign finance reform thing is just another example of the hypocrisy of these politicians. They’ve shoveled the money in their mouth, then profess to be shocked at the discovery that it’s there. Then they say we should give up our right to give money to support the causes we believe in because they don’t have the integrity to do their job. We shouldn’t give up our rights. They should give up their offices.

Campaigns: No union $, no corporate $, no foreign $

“Dollar vote” only if you can “ballot vote”

Campaign finance law should be governed by two principles:
1. No “dollar vote” for anyone not legally able to cast a “ballot vote”
2. Immediate comprehensive disclosure of all campaign contributions.

Wife Jocelyn’s issues: anti-poverty & anti-abortion

Campaign reforms: unconstitutional “incumbency protection”

KEYES. All of these approaches are wrong because they’re based on a premise that I think is unconstitutional. If we have the right of free association, then I think we have the right to associate our money with the causes we believe in, in any amount that we think is necessary to get those causes to work.

HATCH: Amen.

KEYES: For government to step in and for these politicians to be dictating what we can do under that rubric is a total violation of our Constitutional rights. And I think we ought to abandon it. It turns out to be incumbency protection anyway. They will never devise a system that isn’t in their own interest.

Unlimited contributions, but only by people, & publicized

Rich folks who want to give a lot of money to candidates and causes they believe in, [should do so not from] behind PACs and camouflage, but under their own names, right out into the political arena. That will itself regulate participation of money in our politics. But at the end of the day, publicity tied with our informed voting is the best way to regulate this system.

Campaign reform: No $ limits; full disclosure